Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[X.Onasis]

So you don't understand the greenhouse effect? What's so difficult about it?

Nothing is difficult about it...it is fiction...fiction is easy to understand but apparently separating fiction from reality is quite difficult for some people.

But hey...if you believe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, step on up to the plate and deliver....or don't...which is what you will be forced to do since there is no such data...anywhere.

That's easy. On average, the Earth is warmer than the moon. What's so hard to understand about that?

Are you really that stupid...the atmosphere of uranus absorbs IR and it is the coldest place in the solar system.

It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.

The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?

 

[Wuwei]

Wow!?!

I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.

Amazing. Is this another case of 'how do rocks know which way to fall?' Hey, wait a minute....

Hahahaha

At least he is consistent with his silly belief of "force fields" preventing cold stuff from hitting warm things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow!?!

I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.

Amazing. Is this another case of 'how do rocks know which way to fall?' Hey, wait a minute....

Hahahaha

At least he is consistent with his silly belief of "force fields" preventing cold stuff from hitting warm things.

Don't confuse our resident idiots.

SSDD's idiocy says the colder molecules refuse to emit toward warmer molecules or
photons from cooler molecules refuse to travel toward warmer molecules.

Billy_Bob's idiocy says something about covailent [sic] bonds repelling photons from cooler sources.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't confuse our resident idiots.

SSDD's idiocy says the colder molecules refuse to emit toward warmer molecules or
photons from cooler molecules refuse to travel toward warmer molecules.

Billy_Bob's idiocy says something about covailent [sic] bonds repelling photons from cooler sources.

Does Billy Bob have a theory about repulsion of atoms from cooler sources? Maybe trivailent [sic] bonds?

 

[IanC]

Don't confuse our resident idiots.

SSDD's idiocy says the colder molecules refuse to emit toward warmer molecules or
photons from cooler molecules refuse to travel toward warmer molecules.

Billy_Bob's idiocy says something about covailent [sic] bonds repelling photons from cooler sources.

Does Billy Bob have a theory about repulsion of atoms from cooler sources? Maybe trivailent [sic] bonds?

He told me it was the chemical reaction of evaporation.

 

[Wuwei]

Don't confuse our resident idiots.

SSDD's idiocy says the colder molecules refuse to emit toward warmer molecules or
photons from cooler molecules refuse to travel toward warmer molecules.

Billy_Bob's idiocy says something about covailent [sic] bonds repelling photons from cooler sources.

Does Billy Bob have a theory about repulsion of atoms from cooler sources? Maybe trivailent [sic] bonds?

He told me it was the chemical reaction of evaporation.

Your'e kidding. Well... it doesn't matter. Whatever he thinks would be just as ridiculous.

 

[SSDD]

Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.

Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.

Wow!?!

I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.

Amazing. Is this another case of 'how do rocks know which way to fall?' Hey, wait a minute....

Hahahaha

You really are an idiot, aren't you? When did I say that atoms can't hit the surface? I said that energy won't transfer from cool to warm...you believe that because you bounce a cool molecule off a warm surface, that energy transfers to the warm surface?

 

[SSDD]

Since it is consistent, and the atomic physics supports it, there is every reason to accept it. There is every reason not to accept one way thermal radiation because you have to come up with a reason why radiation from the cooler object is blocked or impeded in some way. You never gave a mechanism nor model for that. There isn't any.

Physics doesn't support it...a model supports it...the model says that a thing which would make no difference in the actual measurement is happening so you believe it must be happening and hold up the fact that it would make no difference as evidence that it is happening...laughable.

For a constant volume, what would cause the pressure on a hotter surface to go up when the temperature of an adjacent colder gas goes up a little? The answer is colder atoms hitting the surface.

Pressure causes the gas to heat...it isn't colder atoms transferring energy to the warmer surface..it is warmer atoms transferring energy to a cooler surface... You are making the bald faced claim that cool atoms are causing a warmer object to get warmer....

 

[SSDD]

logical fallacy...and again...this is not the first time I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out that I was right and they were wrong...or even the second time..

Logical fallacy: Since I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out to be right before, then I am always right when I disagree with the scientific community.

When did I ever say that I always disagree with the scientific community? When did I say that I am always right when I disagree with them..you are engaging in more logical fallacy...you are the one claiming that because the scientific community says it that it must be true...

 

[SSDD]

It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.

The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?

The ideal gas laws, with adjustments for solar input get pretty damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't even get close here without an ad hoc adjustment factor.....I tend to go with the hypothesis that works wherever it is tried rather than a hypothesis which works nowhere unless you include a fudge factor...

These calculations were provided by Ross MLeod..properties are from the planetary fact sheet from NASA....feel free to point out any errors to NASA...(note: (S)=Surface (1 bar)= equals altitude where pressure equals that at earth sea level

Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune

Pressure (millibar) 92000 1014 6.9-9 1000 1000 1000 1000
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Density 65000 1217 20 160 190 420 450
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Molecular weight (g/mole) 43.45 28.97 43.34 2.22 2.07 2.64 2.59

Temp(K) 737K 288K 210k 165K 134K 76K 72K
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)


Solar Irradiance (wm/2) 2613.9 1367.6 589.2 50.50 14.90 3.71 1.51

Black Body Temperature (K)184.2 254.3 210.1 110.0 81.1 58.2 46.6


Venus
PV = nRT
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth
PV = nRT
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

Mars
PV = nRT
Because the Martian atmosphere is so slight 2 calculations were used– the minimum and maximum measured at the Viking Lander Site to demonstrate something significant.
6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,
T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Jupiter
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
There can, by definition be no greenhouse effect on jupiter

Saturn
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Saturn

Uranus
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Uranus

Neptune
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Neptune

Particularly note the actual surface temperature of earth and the temperature calculated via the ideal gas laws....very close....doesn't the greenhouse hypothesis claim that an additional 33C is added by the greenhouse effect? Don't you find it interesting that according to the greenhouse hypothesis without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C while the ideal gas laws say that the temperature on earth should be pretty damned close to the actual temperature on earth?...or are you so lacking in critical thinking skills, or have been so thoroughly duped that you find yourself unable to even question those whom you perceive as smarter than yourself?

And as to the physics of the greenhouse effect working fine on other planets, that statement is laughable...the actual temperature on the surface of Venus is about 464C the ideal gas laws, without the addition of incoming solar radiation predict that the temperature on venus should be about 477C...the greenhouse effect model, when applied to venus predicts that without a greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus would be a balmy 68C....the ideal gas laws say 477....the greenhouse effect claims to be 396 degrees on venus.

It is absolutely laughable....What would the greenhouse effect be on planets that have no greenhouse effect due to a lack of greenhouse gasses? The ideal gas laws predict those temperatures just fine...what does the greenhouse effect say? Let me guess..no answer...

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is profound, but it doesn't care what the composition of the atmosphere is..only its mass, and thus isn't politically attractive as human activity can not be demonized...

 

[cnm]

And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point?

You unbelievable idiot. He agrees those graphics represent the greenhouse effect if conditions of equilibrium exist. You can't even understand the answer to your question.

 

[SSDD]

And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point?

You unbelievable idiot. He agrees those graphics represent the greenhouse effect if conditions of equilibrium exist. You can't even understand the answer to your question.

Alas it is you who is the unbelievable idiot...the whole point of the conversation, and the terribly flawed science represented in the graphs is that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...look at the calculations of the temperatures above of the temperatures of the various planets above made with nothing more than the ideal gas laws...the temperature provided by no more than the physical law provides a closer estimate than the greenhouse effect calculations.

 

[cnm]

You are putting science words in sentences and referencing the S-B equation with no context. You will have to show a diagram like the one from the university with arrows and energy flows before you can get your point across.

Otherwise all I can say is that for you to compare ice cubes with the University example, one of the ice cubes or something else will have to be continually receiving thermal energy from an outside source (such as the sun.). You have to specify the full configuration of your "counterexample" before it makes any sense.

I still think you should continue this dialog with BillyBob.

I thought

At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....

is a classic and I'd love to know where it comes from.

 

[X.Onasis]

It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.

The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?

The ideal gas laws, with adjustments for solar input get pretty damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't even get close here without an ad hoc adjustment factor.....I tend to go with the hypothesis that works wherever it is tried rather than a hypothesis which works nowhere unless you include a fudge factor...

These calculations were provided by Ross MLeod..properties are from the planetary fact sheet from NASA....feel free to point out any errors to NASA...(note: (S)=Surface (1 bar)= equals altitude where pressure equals that at earth sea level

Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune

Pressure (millibar) 92000 1014 6.9-9 1000 1000 1000 1000
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Density 65000 1217 20 160 190 420 450
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Molecular weight (g/mole) 43.45 28.97 43.34 2.22 2.07 2.64 2.59

Temp(K) 737K 288K 210k 165K 134K 76K 72K
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)


Solar Irradiance (wm/2) 2613.9 1367.6 589.2 50.50 14.90 3.71 1.51

Black Body Temperature (K)184.2 254.3 210.1 110.0 81.1 58.2 46.6


Venus
PV = nRT
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth
PV = nRT
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

Mars
PV = nRT
Because the Martian atmosphere is so slight 2 calculations were used– the minimum and maximum measured at the Viking Lander Site to demonstrate something significant.
6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,
T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Jupiter
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
There can, by definition be no greenhouse effect on jupiter

Saturn
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Saturn

Uranus
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Uranus

Neptune
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Neptune

Particularly note the actual surface temperature of earth and the temperature calculated via the ideal gas laws....very close....doesn't the greenhouse hypothesis claim that an additional 33C is added by the greenhouse effect? Don't you find it interesting that according to the greenhouse hypothesis without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C while the ideal gas laws say that the temperature on earth should be pretty damned close to the actual temperature on earth?...or are you so lacking in critical thinking skills, or have been so thoroughly duped that you find yourself unable to even question those whom you perceive as smarter than yourself?

And as to the physics of the greenhouse effect working fine on other planets, that statement is laughable...the actual temperature on the surface of Venus is about 464C the ideal gas laws, without the addition of incoming solar radiation predict that the temperature on venus should be about 477C...the greenhouse effect model, when applied to venus predicts that without a greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus would be a balmy 68C....the ideal gas laws say 477....the greenhouse effect claims to be 396 degrees on venus.

It is absolutely laughable....What would the greenhouse effect be on planets that have no greenhouse effect due to a lack of greenhouse gasses? The ideal gas laws predict those temperatures just fine...what does the greenhouse effect say? Let me guess..no answer...

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is profound, but it doesn't care what the composition of the atmosphere is..only its mass, and thus isn't politically attractive as human activity can not be demonized...

Your idiotic rambling nonsense didn't begin to answer my question -- The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?

 

[cnm]

Alas it is you who is the unbelievable idiot..

Yeah, right, like I was the one who asked a question and couldn't understand a perfectly legible answer right off the bat.

Almost as ludicrous as your use of a temperature as an expression of energy.

But, one must admit, nowhere near as hilarious as your refusal to consider the energy from the sun as one of the two radiative inputs to the Earth's surface.

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[SSDD]

It's also 20 times the distance from the sun, so it's hardly comparable.

The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?

The ideal gas laws, with adjustments for solar input get pretty damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't even get close here without an ad hoc adjustment factor.....I tend to go with the hypothesis that works wherever it is tried rather than a hypothesis which works nowhere unless you include a fudge factor...

These calculations were provided by Ross MLeod..properties are from the planetary fact sheet from NASA....feel free to point out any errors to NASA...(note: (S)=Surface (1 bar)= equals altitude where pressure equals that at earth sea level

Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune

Pressure (millibar) 92000 1014 6.9-9 1000 1000 1000 1000
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Density 65000 1217 20 160 190 420 450
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Molecular weight (g/mole) 43.45 28.97 43.34 2.22 2.07 2.64 2.59

Temp(K) 737K 288K 210k 165K 134K 76K 72K
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)


Solar Irradiance (wm/2) 2613.9 1367.6 589.2 50.50 14.90 3.71 1.51

Black Body Temperature (K)184.2 254.3 210.1 110.0 81.1 58.2 46.6


Venus
PV = nRT
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth
PV = nRT
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

Mars
PV = nRT
Because the Martian atmosphere is so slight 2 calculations were used– the minimum and maximum measured at the Viking Lander Site to demonstrate something significant.
6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,
T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Jupiter
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
There can, by definition be no greenhouse effect on jupiter

Saturn
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Saturn

Uranus
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Uranus

Neptune
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Neptune

Particularly note the actual surface temperature of earth and the temperature calculated via the ideal gas laws....very close....doesn't the greenhouse hypothesis claim that an additional 33C is added by the greenhouse effect? Don't you find it interesting that according to the greenhouse hypothesis without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C while the ideal gas laws say that the temperature on earth should be pretty damned close to the actual temperature on earth?...or are you so lacking in critical thinking skills, or have been so thoroughly duped that you find yourself unable to even question those whom you perceive as smarter than yourself?

And as to the physics of the greenhouse effect working fine on other planets, that statement is laughable...the actual temperature on the surface of Venus is about 464C the ideal gas laws, without the addition of incoming solar radiation predict that the temperature on venus should be about 477C...the greenhouse effect model, when applied to venus predicts that without a greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus would be a balmy 68C....the ideal gas laws say 477....the greenhouse effect claims to be 396 degrees on venus.

It is absolutely laughable....What would the greenhouse effect be on planets that have no greenhouse effect due to a lack of greenhouse gasses? The ideal gas laws predict those temperatures just fine...what does the greenhouse effect say? Let me guess..no answer...

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is profound, but it doesn't care what the composition of the atmosphere is..only its mass, and thus isn't politically attractive as human activity can not be demonized...

Your idiotic rambling nonsense didn't begin to answer my question -- The Earth and moon are essentially the same distance from the sun. So what's your belief concerning their different average temps if not the greenhouse effect?

Geez guy...use your brain..I just gave you the reason for the different temps and then went on to apply my position to every planet in the solar system with a substantial atmosphere...not needing to apply a greenhouse effect...the reason for the temperature difference between here and the moon is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon..but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere

 

[Wuwei]

You really are an idiot, aren't you? When did I say that atoms can't hit the surface? I said that energy won't transfer from cool to warm...you believe that because you bounce a cool molecule off a warm surface, that energy transfers to the warm surface?

Pressure causes the gas to heat...it isn't colder atoms transferring energy to the warmer surface..it is warmer atoms transferring energy to a cooler surface... You are making the bald faced claim that cool atoms are causing a warmer object to get warmer....

The kinetic energy of a warmer surface in contact with a cooler gas transfers both ways. The net energy always transfers from the warmer surface to the colder gas.

There is much more going on than "bouncing" a molecule off a warm surface. Look up the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions. Your concept of "bouncing" is an elastic collision which preserves entropy. True elastic collisions very seldom occur in nature. There is a temperature difference in the case we are talking about, and heat flow never preserves entropy. Also look up the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution to see just how fast cool molecules can move. You will be surprised.

If every molecule "bounced" off with the same input and output speed the cooler gas would not gain energy from the warmer surface, and heat would not flow. "Bouncing" at the atomic level is quite scientifically naive.

 

[Wuwei]

Geez guy...use your brain..I just gave you the reason for the different temps and then went on to apply my position to every planet in the solar system with a substantial atmosphere...not needing to apply a greenhouse effect...the reason for the temperature difference between here and the moon is the lack of an atmosphere on the moon..but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere

Note to X.Onasis: SSDD has cross-posted this ideal gas law planetary crap several times. This my reply to a reference he cited:

Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

The author depends on adiabatic systems which are very fleeting in nature and have no long term effect. There was a rampant use of fudge factors in his curve fitting effort which did not carry much significance, and as the author admits, his result is vastly different than what he physically attempted to show. It is disingenuous when SSDD disparages physics models, but nevertheless cherry picks a model which is physically not viable.

 

[IanC]

Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.

Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.

Wow!?!

I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.

Amazing. Is this another case of 'how do rocks know which way to fall?' Hey, wait a minute....

Hahahaha

You really are an idiot, aren't you? When did I say that atoms can't hit the surface? I said that energy won't transfer from cool to warm...you believe that because you bounce a cool molecule off a warm surface, that energy transfers to the warm surface?

You weren't satisfied with scoffing at quantum mechanics, now you are defying Newtonian physics as well.

 

[IanC]

Physics doesn't support it...a model supports it...the model says that a thing which would make no difference in the actual measurement is happening so you believe it must be happening and hold up the fact that it would make no difference as evidence that it is happening...laughable

All Physics is a model.

The best models not only describe and accurately predict what is happening but also give the reason for it.

Your model gives some right answers but gives no mechanism as to why it happens. My model produces the same right answers as yours, gives other right answers that yours cannot, and gives the mechanism underlying the processes.

Your model is severely incomplete, mine less so.

It is your perogative if you want to stick with antiquated 150 year old physics models that were based on macroscopic observations.

Since that time information on the atomic scale world has exploded, giving reasons for the observations that previously could only be (poorly) measured.